Man who shot YouTuber on video at Dulles Town Center found not guilty by jury
LEESBURG, Va. — After two days of testimony, the man who shot a 21-year-old YouTuber inside Dulles Town Center on video in April has been found not guilty on two charges of malicious wounding.
The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding, however, he was found guilty of firing a gun inside the mall. That guilty verdict has been set aside until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.
Colie, a DoorDash driver, was on trial for shooting Tanner Cook, the man behind the YouTube channel "Classified Goons," at the Dulles Town Center back in April. Colie admitted to shooting Cook when he took the stand Wednesday but claimed it was self-defense.
The case went viral not because there was a shooting inside a mall, but because Cook is known to make prank videos. Cook amassed 55,000 subscribers with an average income of up to $3,000 per month. He said he elicits responses to entertain viewers and called his pranks “comedy content.”
Colie faced three charges, including aggravated malicious wounding, malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling, and use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding. The jury had to weigh different factors including if Colie had malicious intent and had reasonable fear of imminent danger of bodily harm.
Cook was in the courtroom when jurors were shown footage of him getting shot near the stomach -- a video that has not yet been made public. Cook's mother, however, left the courtroom to avoid watching the key piece of evidence in her son's shooting.
The footage was recorded by one of Cook's friends, who was helping to record a prank video for Cook's channel. The video shows Cook holding his phone near Colie’s ear and using Google Translate to play a phrase out loud four times, while Colie backed away.
When he testified, Colie recalled how Cook and his friend approached him from behind and put the phone about 6 inches away from his face. He described feeling confused by the phrase Cook was playing. Colie told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.” He also acknowledged carrying a gun during work as a way to protect himself after seeing reports of other delivery service drivers being robbed.
"Colie walked into the mall to do his job with no intention of interacting with Tanner Cook. None," Adam Pouilliard, Colie's defense attorney, said. "He’s sitting next to his defense attorneys right now. How’s that for a consequence?”
The Commonwealth argued that Cook was never armed, never placed hands on Colie and never posed a threat. They stressed that just because Cook may not seem like a saint or his occupation makes him appear undesirable, that a conviction is warranted.
"We don’t like our personal space invaded, but that does not justify the ability to shoot someone in a public space during an interaction that lasted for only 20 seconds," Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Eden Holmes said.
The jury began deliberating around 11:30 a.m. Thursday. Shortly after 3:30 p.m., the jury came back saying they were divided and couldn’t come to a resolution. The judge instructed them to continue deliberating and later returned with the not-guilty verdict.
WUSA9 caught up with the Cook family following the verdict. When we asked Tanner Cook how he felt about the outcome, he said it is all up to God.
"I really don't care, I mean it is what it is," he said. "It's God's plan at the end of the day."
His mother, Marla Elam, said the family respects the jury and that the Cook family is just thankful Tanner is alive.
"Nothing else matters right now," she said.
Here's the video by NBC Washington, apologies that it's served by Discord
It says he's been found "not guilty" of that one. The charge he's been found guilty of is "malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling", which... well, he did.
It's like the laws against shooting bottles in your suburban home backyard: without the right precautions, those bullets can travel a long way, and what goes up ultimately comes down. There have been cases of stray bullets hitting someone totally unsuspecting a block or a few away.
My understanding is that the reason why it's odd is because they found him not guilty on the other two charges on the grounds of self-defense. If I understand correctly, "self-defense" justifies discharging a firearm, regardless of who, what, when, where, why or how. If the jury rules self-defense in one instance, it should logically be applied to all charges related to that instance. Soooo... why were only two charges "self-defense"?
This is the problem with American mentality...
No, "self-defense" does not give you a free pass, it only gives you the right to defend yourself against a single specific threat, and only that threat [in more civilized countries, it also requires "with the minimum amount of force necessary"].
You don't get to mow the crowd with an assault rifle set on full auto, or to nuke the whole mall with all bystanders in it, just because of "self-defense" against a single guy.
Because they were specified as "aggravated", which is kind of like saying "without reason". Self-defense was the reason there, so he wasn't found guilty of the aggravated charges.
The "non-aggravated" one though, needs more justifying than just "I was afraid"... and I think it should stick, because he should have known better than to start shooting in a mall.
That's a real jump there friend
Now you're just getting out of hand.
Imagine taking obvious hyperbole at face value.
Imagine jumping straight to obvious hyperbole as a means of supporting one's rather absurd position.
Imagine defending such.
The argument that it's impossible to be liable for putting others in danger if you're defending yourself is just crazy.
If you can understand why it would apply to those exaggerated examples, you can understand why it COULD apply to this situation.
Now, you can argue that they DIDN’T put others in danger by discharging their firearm. But that's a separate argument.
The jump was at "regardless".
You can't have even an appearance of civilization if you go "regardless" of everything.
"Everyone's rights end, where everyone else's begin". Don't they teach that in school anymore?
It absolutely does not justify that. You are not suddenly immune from the damage you cause because you were defending yourself. If you don't pay attention to what's down range and put a bullet through a kid's head, your negligence caused a death and you will absolutely be charged with manslaughter at the very least. Most people don't realize how loud firearms really are. Discharging a firearm inside an enclosed space without hearing protection can permanently damage hearing, so he could have easily permanently injured a lot of bystanders.
That's the logic that's being used in the defense but it's not necessarily true. If I were to engage a legitimate threat with a firearm but do so in a reckless manner, I would be justified in the shooting but not justified in the reckless Manor in which I discharge the weapon. That's why carrying a firearm is such a responsibility and liability. In addition to having to determine what is and what is not a deadly threat you also have to know your surroundings and what is past your target. Generally, a bit more leeway is given once the shooting is justified, but in acquittal on criminal charges doesn't justify the shooting. You acquittal on the other two charges just means there's insufficient evidence to prove the crime. Having insufficient evidence to prove one crime does not mean that another cannot be proven. For those of you not in America who are trying to follow along, just don't. It's not worth the the headache.
The crime is proven. He admitted to shooting Cook. The crime occurred and that is accepted legal fact. The acquittal was a result of a plea of self-defence.
He's clearly guilty of discharging, but it may not be found malicious, given the other verdicts.
If it's self-defence to an extent where use of a firearm is "proportional force," I fail to see how the venue comes into play.
The charges were:
The "aggravated" charges seem to have been decided as "not guilty"; the remaining one is not aggravated, just simple trying to shoot someone when there are innocent people nearby in range of the shots.
I bet the lawyers are going to dissect the meaning of "malicious", but as I see it, he did intend to shoot someone; he didn't fire a warning shot into a flower pot, the gun didn't discharge accidentally. I'd say that qualifies as "malicious".
I agree we'll need to know how malicious is defined so it can be applied to this situation. He didn't get to choose the time and place it took place. He didn't go to the mall looking for trouble, it found him.
I'm also not fully sure how many shots were fired. The few articles I read before didn't mention it, but assuming it was 1 and done. It hit the intended target to neutralize the perceived threat, using a caliber that most likely wouldn't fully penetrate. I would say a he didn't act with neglect for other's lives that were not a part of the situation. If he wildly fired his gun and somehow managed to hit the guy, then yeah I could easily see how that could be malicious/neglectful.
There's a link to the video: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/671126887598129152/1157686515187593401/downloadfile.mp4
It was a single shot, almost at point-blank, but kind of backwards and without proper aiming. It's kind of how they tell you not to use a gun. It isn't obvious from that video whether he had a clear shot; there were at least 2 other people around, who arguably could've been considered part of the threat, but also any number of workers at the food stands, and an unknown number of clients, who could've ended up being shot had he missed.
I'd say there was "some" neglect on his part... but how much, and how does it translate to the law, is hard to say without more data (and IANAL anyway).
What the hell kind of 9mm ammo you using that would barely penetrate? There are so many types of deforming rounds made for 9mm because it's actually really good at penetrating humans, walls, cars, you name it. If this idiot loaded FMJs, a single round would easily go through multiple people before stopping.
Correction: may over-penetrate, given the actual center-mass shot, and even then, given this individual seems to have ensured a safe shot e.g. knowing what is beyond your target, there's absolutely no reason to assume such risk.
This, even side from jumping to alarmism regarding projectile without a reference to the actual projectile used. It seems you're just fearmongering.
Except for the parts where the guy shot almost backwards, with barely any aiming, at an angle, nowhere close to center-mass, and with a bunch of food stands with workers on one side, plus an unknown number of clients on the other.
Did you even watch the video?
The video which demonstrated a single rounded placed into the assailant low-center (backwards? barely any aiming? Way to take the mask off), completely clear of those stands and "unknown clients"?
Did you watch it? The extent to which you're misrepresenting what happened makes a person wonder. I sincerely hope it's just you were just too preoccupied with confirmation bias to see the objective truth of the situation in the video.
So you didn't watch it.
Seeing how you're arguing in bad faith, this is where we shall part ways.
Discussions must be easier when you can simply accuse another of your own failings, with no support for such an accusation, and just peace out when called out on it.
I believe that's considered trolling.